Dennis Ross Caught Between Obama and Netanyahu

With Ali Gharib

In the ongoing showdown between the Obama administration and Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, White House Middle East strategist Dennis Ross appears to be the man caught in the no-man’s land between the White House and the Israel Lobby.

Since Netanyahu’s snub of Biden earlier in the month and the White House’s closed-doors meeting with Bibi last week, the Obama administration has been seen as taking a far-harder stance against Israeli settlement construction than either George W. Bush or Bill Clinton.

One of the most interesting developments over the past few weeks has been how the range of acceptable topics in the debate over U.S.-Israeli relations has broadened after Gen. David Petraeus made the linkage between Israel’s failure to make a peace deal and U.S. security interests in the region.

AIPAC and the broader Israel Lobby have not been taking this drumming sitting down.  AIPAC convinced more than two-thirds of the House of Representatives to sign a letter “reaffirming” the U.S.-Israel alliance and calling on the Obama administration to end the public denunciations of Israel’s recent behavior.

For its part, AIPAC’s opposition to official U.S. policy on settlements — not to mention international law — was starkly displayed when the group’s spokesman was forced to deny the authenticity of an AIPAC press release parroting Obama’s demand to end settlements.

But AIPAC isn’t the only one questioning Obama’s approach.

On Sunday, Politico’s Laura Rozen quoted an unnamed U.S. official calling out Dennis Ross for basically taking Bibi’s line:

“He [Ross] seems to be far more sensitive to Netanyahu’s coalition politics than to U.S. interests,” one U.S. official told POLITICO Saturday. “And he doesn’t seem to understand that this has become bigger than Jerusalem but is rather about the credibility of this administration.”

Predictably, this set off a round of condemnations of the unnamed official as the administration worked hard to head off any suggestion that there might be disagreement within the White House on how to deal with Netanyahu or, worse yet, that a U.S. official might be put under scrutiny for putting the interests of Israel before the U.S.

Ross’s supporters lashed out with the easiest attacks they can muster against what is a fair critique of Ross — namely, that this was the old anti-Semitic canard of accusing Jews of dual loyalty. To wit, Atlantic‘s Jeffrey Goldberg, who served in the IDF as a prison guard during the First Intifada, wrote:

Laura Rozen allows an anonymous Administration official to hijack her blog and accuse the National Security Council’s Dennis Ross of dual-loyalty.

But the argument is a straw man. Goldberg’s colleague and former sparring partner Andrew Sullivan picks him apart (worth reading in full for Sullivan’s defense of Rozen):

So Ross’s view is that Jerusalem should be retained entirely by Israel, as is the obvious position of Netanyahu and much of the pro-Israel lobby. […] So Ross’s publicly stated position is ineluctably at total odds with his president’s, and Obama’s demands on stopping new settlements in East Jerusalem must make little sense to him.

Ross is not accused of dual-loyalty. Rather, he’s fairly accused of being a symbol of — and according to Rozen’s report, arguing for — the same tired peace process policies of the last two decades.

Ross is a three-time loser in Israeli-Palestinian peace making — he was the lead U.S. envoy to the region throughout the failure after Madrid, the failure after Oslo, and the failure at the Camp David Summit. The collapse of that approach was hit on the head by Amb. Dan Kurtzer and Scott Lasensky in their excellent book, Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace — “Power dynamics in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are deeply unbalanced.” (They also hit on linkage: “This devastating failure has hurt U.S. interests and damaged our ability to gain cooperation from allies and key regional players. At the popular level, it has weakened the U.S. position in the region and on the world stage.”) Guess who shows up when Kurtzer and Lasensky quote an Arab negotiator:

“The perception always was that Dennis [Ross] started from the Israeli bottom line, that he listened to what Israel wanted and then tried to sell it to the Arabs.… He was never looked at … as a trusted world figure or as an honest broker.”

You get the feeling that Ross is one of the characters veteran State Department Mid East hand Aaron David Miller had in mind when he wrote a now-famous Washington Post op-ed called “Israel’s Lawyer”:

For far too long, many American officials involved in Arab-Israeli peacemaking, myself included, have acted as Israel’s attorney, catering and coordinating with the Israelis at the expense of successful peace negotiations.

It should come as no surprise that Dennis Ross is staking out an anti-linkage, pro-Netanyahu position in the administration. A New York Times excerpt of his 2009 book, Myths, Allusions and Peace, co-written with neocon Washington Institute fellow David Makovsky, is pretty much a diatribe against linking the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the host of problems faced by the U.S. in the region.

Phil Weiss has more on the book’s opposition to a concept central to the direction of Obama’s Mid East policies, and goes so far as to call Ross “the living embodiment of the Israel lobby.”

Ross got his job on the Iran desk at State (though he’s been shuffled around and works now through the NSC) by writing Obama’s AIPAC speech delivered during the campaign, in which the then-candidate alluded to an “undivided Jerusalem” (interpretations of this statement differ). While Ross has thrown in his lot with neocons on Iran, the silver lining of the appointment was that he was far, far away from the Arab-Israeli peace process. Paul Woodward picks up on the irony of Ross reasserting himself in that arena:

If one man can be said to epitomize the failure of the peace process more than any other American official, it’s probably Dennis Ross. Why then, one might then ask, would he have such a central role in getting this “derailed” process “back on track”?

Now that this administration appears to have decided that linking the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to broader U.S. interests in the region is exactly what they’ll do, it should raise questions about what role Dennis Ross can continue to play.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
avatar

Eli Clifton

Eli Clifton reports on money in politics and US foreign policy. He is a co-founder of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. Eli previously reported for the American Independent News Network, ThinkProgress, and Inter Press Service.

SHOW 18 COMMENTS

18 Comments

  1. Of course, Dennis Ross will blame Yasser Arafat, he is clearly a Jewish nationalist rather than simply an American who happens to be Jewish like Aaron David Miller. He never showed he cared about the interests of the Arabs, and an official serving the US, an ally of certain Arab states and Israel should. Ross is not credible if he completely blames Arafat. As Gush Shalom said, Barak did not redeploy troops as he told Arafat and Clinton he would. Then, he tried to rush Arafat into an agreement and Arafat insisted Barak make the withdrawal he promised and was suspicious. Barak also was chasing Syria for an agreement and waited at the last moment. Arafat didn’t respond properly to Barak’s proposal, but he responded positively to the proposals at Taba.
    Saying it was simply Arafat’s fault and not Barak’s too, is ridiculous. Palestinians coudn’t accept the lack of a real border with Jordan, being bisected by huge settlements. Why do you think Tony Blair said “viable Palestinian state”.
    It was an indirect admission that what Barak proposed was unrealistic, but saying the truth about Israel is hard for America and England, but that’s changing. Amercan Jewry is also getting fed up with right wing, ethno-centric brethren just a whites opposed Afrikanner supremacy over blacks. By the way, Israel supported South Africa.

  2. It is this singular inability to be objective about the Arab-Israeli conflict that has cost the United States its global standing. In the Arab and Muslim world and beyond, the US has been rightfully accused of double standards, primarily because of its blind support for Israel. You don’t need a pundit to point out the patent absence of credibilility of US position on different global issues. Wherever an Israeli connection exists, the US position has been marked by consistent distortions. Take today’s US position on Iran – the make-believe “existential threat” to Israel. You would be led to believe that it is Iran that maintains an undisclosed arsenal of nuclear weapons or that it refuses to sign the NPT or allow IAEA inspections? Not so. A signatory to the NPT, Iran has, in fact, no nuclear weapon and allows regular IAEA inspections. It is only Israel that is guilty on all accounts. But the US insistence on sanctions only applies to Iran. Heaven help us if an American should seek a blanket application all around that could include Israel! As for the Middle East, the world is witness to the selective applications of UN security council resolutions as a basis for legitimizing military actions. One has to wonder which UN security council resolution has the US ever held Israel to account for! If UN security council resolution 242 were enforced, there would be no debate today on the so-called settlement issue: Israel would have been forced to withdraw to just 80% of Palestine that it managed to occupy prior to June 1967 – and the Palestineans, left with 20% of their ancestral lands in the West Bank and Gaza, could then have been, with deft diplomatic initiatives, persuaded to co-exist with their zionist neighbors. But, then you have the fifth column in the US itself in the likes of Dennis Ross and Israel can bank on Tel Aviv defining US policies. It’s time for Americans to ask: Whose interests do the Dennis Ross’ serve?

  3. A beautifully written article. I can’t wait for the townhall meetings in the USA over the settlement issue.

  4. the one two punch that placed the camp david failure
    on arafat was Ross and Tom Friedman of NY Times. T
    ogether they founded the conservative Kol Shalom sy
    nagogue in Md.

  5. Domt these fool realise that they are bringing america down for the sake of israel[jacob],and in any event israel will not be able to continue its crime against humanity with or without americas assistance. SUCH FOOLS.

Comments are closed.